Ontological support for the evolution of future services oriented architectures

Services Oriented Architectures (SOA) have emerged as a useful framework for developing interoperable, large-scale systems, typically implemented using the Web Services (WS) standards. However, the maintenance and evolution of SOA systems present many challenges. SmartLife applications are intelligent user-centered systems and a special class of SOA systems that present even greater challenges for a software maintainer. Ontologies and ontological modeling can be used to support the evolution of SOA systems. This paper describes the development of a SOA evolution ontology and its use to develop an ontological model of a SOA system. The ontology is based on a standard SOA ontology. The ontological model can be used to provide semantic and visual support for software maintainers during routine maintenance tasks. We discuss a case study to illustrate this approach, as well as the strengths and limitations

Ontology evolution: a process-centric survey

Ontology evolution aims at maintaining an ontology up to date with respect to changes in the domain that it models or novel requirements of information systems that it enables. The recent industrial adoption of Semantic Web techniques, which rely on ontologies, has led to the increased importance of the ontology evolution research. Typical approaches to ontology evolution are designed as multiple-stage processes combining techniques from a variety of fields (e.g., natural language processing and reasoning). However, the few existing surveys on this topic lack an in-depth analysis of the various stages of the ontology evolution process. This survey extends the literature by adopting a process-centric view of ontology evolution. Accordingly, we first provide an overall process model synthesized from an overview of the existing models in the literature. Then we survey the major approaches to each of the steps in this process and conclude on future challenges for techniques aiming to solve that particular stage

Uniform Interpolation and Forgetting for ALC Ontologies with ABoxes

Uniform interpolation and the dual task of forgetting restrict the ontology to a specified subset of concept and role names. This makes them useful tools for ontology analysis, ontology evolution and information hiding. Most previous research focused on uniform interpolation of TBoxes. However, especially for applications in privacy and information hiding, it is essential that uniform interpolation methods can deal with ABoxes as well. We present the first method that can compute uniform interpolants of any ALC ontology with ABoxes. ABoxes bring their own challenges when computing uniform interpolants, possibly requiring disjunctive statements or nominals in the resulting ABox. Our method can compute representations of uniform interpolants in ALCO. An evaluation on realistic ontologies shows that these uniform interpolants can be practically computed, and can often even be presented in pure ALC

Is a Semantic Web Agent a Knowledge-Savvy Agent?

The issue of knowledge sharing has permeated the field of distributed AI and in particular, its successor, multiagent systems. Through the years, many research and engineering efforts have tackled the problem of encoding and sharing knowledge without the need for a single, centralized knowledge base. However, the emergence of modern computing paradigms such as distributed, open systems have highlighted the importance of sharing distributed and heterogeneous knowledge at a larger scale—possibly at the scale of the Internet. The very characteristics that define the Semantic Web—that is, dynamic, distributed, incomplete, and uncertain knowledge—suggest the need for autonomy in distributed software systems. Semantic Web research promises more than mere management of ontologies and data through the definition of machine-understandable languages. The openness and decentralization introduced by multiagent systems and service-oriented architectures give rise to new knowledge management models, for which we can’t make a priori assumptions about the type of interaction an agent or a service may be engaged in, and likewise about the message protocols and vocabulary used. We therefore discuss the problem of knowledge management for open multi-agent systems, and highlight a number of challenges relating to the exchange and evolution of knowledge in open environments, which pertinent to both the Semantic Web and Multi Agent System communities alike

The Teleost Anatomy Ontology: Anatomical Representation for the Genomics Age

The rich knowledge of morphological variation among organisms reported in the systematic literature has remained in free-text format, impractical for use in large-scale synthetic phylogenetic work. This noncomputable format has also precluded linkage to the large knowledgebase of genomic, genetic, developmental, and phenotype data in model organism databases. We have undertaken an effort to prototype a curated, ontology-based evolutionary morphology database that maps to these genetic databases (http://kb.phenoscape.org) to facilitate investigation into the mechanistic basis and evolution of phenotypic diversity. Among the first requirements in establishing this database was the development of a multispecies anatomy ontology with the goal of capturing anatomical data in a systematic and computable manner. An ontology is a formal representation of a set of concepts with defined relationships between those concepts. Multispecies anatomy ontologies in particular are an efficient way to represent the diversity of morphological structures in a clade of organisms, but they present challenges in their development relative to single-species anatomy ontologies. Here, we describe the Teleost Anatomy Ontology (TAO), a multispecies anatomy ontology for teleost fishes derived from the Zebrafish Anatomical Ontology (ZFA) for the purpose of annotating varying morphological features across species. To facilitate interoperability with other anatomy ontologies, TAO uses the Common Anatomy Reference Ontology as a template for its upper level nodes, and TAO and ZFA are synchronized, with zebrafish terms specified as subtypes of teleost terms. We found that the details of ontology architecture have ramifications for querying, and we present general challenges in developing a multispecies anatomy ontology, including refinement of definitions, taxon-specific relationships among terms, and representation of taxonomically variable developmental pathways.This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF DBI 0641025), National Institutes of Health (HG002659), and the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center (NSF EF-0423641)

An Interface for Ontology Based Platform - the Evolution of the Ideas

The article presents main stages in the process of the development the user interface of the Share.TEC ontology based portal for teacher educators. The paper discusses how the various ideas were born, what types of challenges they provoke and different approaches to solve problems. The whole process of the dynamic progress and evolution of the first imaginations to its final version implemented in the prototype is described

Interdisciplinary perspectives on the development, integration and application of cognitive ontologies

We discuss recent progress in the development of cognitive ontologies and summarize three challenges in the coordinated development and application of these resources. Challenge 1 is to adopt a standardized definition for cognitive processes. We describe three possibilities and recommend one that is consistent with the standard view in cognitive and biomedical sciences. Challenge 2 is harmonization. Gaps and conflicts in representation must be resolved so that these resources can be combined for mark-up and interpretation of multi-modal data. Finally, Challenge 3 is to test the utility of these resources for large-scale annotation of data, search and query, and knowledge discovery and integration. As term definitions are tested and revised, harmonization should enable coordinated updates across ontologies. However, the true test of these definitions will be in their community-wide adoption which will test whether they support valid inferences about psychological and neuroscientific data

Using Ontologies for Semantic Data Integration

While big data analytics is considered as one of the most important paths to competitive advantage of today’s enterprises, data scientists spend a comparatively large amount of time in the data preparation and data integration phase of a big data project. This shows that data integration is still a major challenge in IT applications. Over the past two decades, the idea of using semantics for data integration has become increasingly crucial, and has received much attention in the AI, database, web, and data mining communities. Here, we focus on a specific paradigm for semantic data integration, called Ontology-Based Data Access (OBDA). The goal of this paper is to provide an overview of OBDA, pointing out both the techniques that are at the basis of the paradigm, and the main challenges that remain to be addressed

Challenges for an Ontology of Artificial Intelligence

Of primary importance in formulating a response to the increasing prevalence and power of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in society are questions of ontology. Questions such as: What “are” these systems? How are they to be regarded? How does an algorithm come to be regarded as an agent? We discuss three factors which hinder discussion and obscure attempts to form a clear ontology of AI: (1) the various and evolving definitions of AI, (2) the tendency for pre-existing technologies to be assimilated and regarded as “normal,” and (3) the tendency of human beings to anthropomorphize. This list is not intended as exhaustive, nor is it seen to preclude entirely a clear ontology, however, these challenges are a necessary set of topics for consideration. Each of these factors is seen to present a 'moving target' for discussion, which poses a challenge for both technical specialists and non-practitioners of AI systems development (e.g., philosophers and theologians) to speak meaningfully given that the corpus of AI structures and capabilities evolves at a rapid pace. Finally, we present avenues for moving forward, including opportunities for collaborative synthesis for scholars in philosophy and science